From Lula to Cristina | Profile

The overturning of Lula’s corruption convictions in Brazil resonates in Argentina, generating multiple hypotheses:

● Is this a preview of what will happen to Cristina Kirchner’s corruption cases?

● That Lula’s convictions be overturned due to the bias of former judge Sergio Moro, in coordination with Lava’s prosecutor Jato Deltan Dallagnol, will he end up canceling all the corruption cases of the same judge and prosecutor?

● If it was proven in Argentina that Judge Claudio Bonadio was also not impartial because he had obvious enmity with Cristina Kirchner and acted with the same coordination as Moro with his prosecutor, in the Argentina case with Carlos Stornelli, the Hotesur and Les cahiers cases, even if they were convicted by oral courts (convictions overturned in Brazil had decisions not only from Sergio Moro but also from higher courts)?

● Will the messages between different judicial officials and those of the previous government that Judge Servini de Cubría is investigating be equivalent to the Telegram messages that The Intercep site published in Brazil in 2019 and were they evidence to accuse Sergio Moro bias?

● That Lula can again be candidate for the presidency in the Brazilian elections next year, does he anticipate for 2022/3 a new change of era in which he returns to the South American political map of 2007 with the Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador chaired by Lula, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirchner plus the representatives of Chávez and Correa (for the eternalization of Maduro and Andrés Arauz, if the second round won in Ecuador on April 11)?

Let’s go in parts: in Brazil, it is justice that has changed the political climate while in Argentina it is politics that has changed the judicial climate. The Lava Jato case has already generated convictions with Lula’s party in government, generating the loss of prestige that led to the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the subsequent conviction of Lula, which prevented him from being a candidate. in the 2018 elections, the triumph of Macri in 2015 and the change of political climate which generated an acceleration of the causes of corruption which were dormant, plus the addition of new ones.

In Brazil, Lula would have won the 2018 elections while in Argentina Cristina Kirchner lost the elections in the province of Buenos Aires in 2017 and allied with Alberto Fernández and Sergio Massa in 2019 because she alone could not win.

In Brazil, it is argued that Bolsonaro worked for Lula to regain his political rights because he would rather compete with him in a poll next year than against the governor of São Paulo, who does not have the high rejection of ‘part of society like Lula. But the problem got out of hand. Their strategy was to overturn Lula’s convictions only on the grounds that, not being a judge of Brasilia, Sergio Moro had no jurisdiction to try a president and therefore not all the evidence against Lula on instruction from Moro and the prosecutor Dallagnol. , like the testimonies of the repentant.

Bolsonaro’s goal was to immediately start another trial against Lula in Brazil with the same evidence and to have a conviction at first instance before next year’s elections, as that would not disqualify Lula from being a candidate since alone a second conviction would lose its political character. rights and there would be no time for two sentences before the election.

But what started as an annulment on March 9 purely on jurisdictional issues produced by Judge Edson Fachin, two weeks later, on March 23, ended up gaining momentum with the Second Chamber judgment of the Supreme Court overturning the bias convictions of Sergio Moro.

The Supreme Court of Brazil, unlike our Supreme Court, has two chambers of five members each and a president. There are eleven members whose names, it is said in Brazil, are even better known than the eleven titles of the football team. In this case, the Second Chamber ended up voting three to two in favor of Lula, but the surprise was the change of vote that made this result possible. It is that of Judge Cármen Lúcia, who in 2016, as president of the court, defined that Lula was going to jail and in 2018, she voted in favor of Sergio Moro while the actions of the judge were also discussed. It was Lula himself who in 2006 appointed Cármen Lúcia to the Supreme Court, but the explanation for the judge’s change of perspective is not there, but rather in the changing climate of the time.

The defeat of Bolsonaro in the midterm elections in November and that of Donald Trump, his main inspiration, due to the same denialist attitude towards the coronavirus, have changed the social mood. We will have to see if this is enough for Lula and not the governor of San Pablo to win in a possible election and we will have to see how this influences justice and Argentine politics.

Here, the Frente de Todos will not be able to have two-thirds in the Senate in the next elections, but with a very good electoral result in October it could aspire to have a majority of deputies: Together for change renews the deputies of its best choice: 2017. A possible majority in the deputies and in the Senate, which it already has, would it allow the government to negotiate with the opposition legal questions which require two-thirds in exchange for other concessions?

Corollary: in Brazil, Lava Jato is not discussed and the theory of law is not confirmed. Not only did the repentant confess to paying bribes, they returned $ 4 billion. What is debated is whether Lula kept any money or did they take the political advantage of including him in Petrobras and Odebrecht’s cause to affect him politically.

Translated to Argentina, it is proven that there was corruption between 2003 and 2015, the secretary of public works José López with their suitcases and the secretary of transport Ricardo Jaime confessed, making the situation of their boss very difficult, the former Minister of Planning Julio De Vido. What the government will seek to support is that Cristina Kirchner did not receive some of this money and the opposition took the opportunity to include her in these causes to politically discredit her. But only with Lázaro Báez, although there is no evidence of her economic relationship with Néstor Kirchner, it is enough to convince herself that her husband had a very different relationship with money than Lula (a former worker who longed for an apartment on the beach). And her husband was her conjugal partner.